2 of 6
2
Climate change killing mighty trees in Alaska
Posted: 05 March 2012 01:40 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 16 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  15435
Joined  2006-02-14
FrenchCurve - 05 March 2012 01:33 PM

DougSmith, you are offering ad hom attack. Would you not consider staying on topic ? Or at least tell me what rules you will accuse me of breaking ?

I can respond to your questions specifically, though they do not pertain to this topic in particular.

I am not engaging in ad hominem, I am saying you appear to have several suppressed premises in your argument. Your dogged decision not to confront them is only further evidence for that fact.

Since I have not yet replied in blue, I have not accused you of breaking any rules. Though hidden agendas of this sort are the tactic of the troll, and trolling is against the rules.

 Signature 

Doug

-:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:-

El sueño de la razón produce monstruos

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 March 2012 01:52 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 17 ]
Jr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  82
Joined  2012-03-05
dougsmith - 05 March 2012 01:40 PM
FrenchCurve - 05 March 2012 01:33 PM

DougSmith, you are offering ad hom attack. Would you not consider staying on topic ? Or at least tell me what rules you will accuse me of breaking ?

I can respond to your questions specifically, though they do not pertain to this topic in particular.

I am not engaging in ad hominem, I am saying you appear to have several suppressed premises in your argument. Your dogged decision not to confront them is only further evidence for that fact.

Since I have not yet replied in blue, I have not accused you of breaking any rules. Though hidden agendas of this sort are the tactic of the troll, and trolling is against the rules.

First, to the assertion, this is plainly ad hom

Additionally, I wonder why someone would come here and virtually as a first post find issue with some trivial point re. AGW rather than simply state outright that they think it is bunk. If you believe AGW is real but simply think the issue re. snow cover is wrong, then you should make that clear. (Though I doubt that given your other post re. the Heartland institute’s pseudoscience). If, OTOH, your aim is to discredit AGW then first of all you are going about your aim in a manner which is less than completely open. Secondly, I have to wonder what makes you think you know better than the scientists who actually study the phenomena professionally.

The supposed “suppressed premises” you explored were fabrications, inanities. Not real.
Second, to the assertion

... hidden agendas of this sort

Which hidden agenda to do what, Doug ? Make the complete charge, instead of insinuating and fishing.

Thirdly, this

Your dogged decision not to confront them is only further evidence for that fact.

is a complete fabrication. It is no fact at all.  Neither “dogged decision” nor it’s implications, Doug. Neither happened.

[ Edited: 05 March 2012 01:56 PM by FrenchCurve ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 March 2012 01:56 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 18 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  15435
Joined  2006-02-14
FrenchCurve - 05 March 2012 01:52 PM

Which hidden agenda to do what, Doug ? Make the complete charge, instead of insinuating and fishing.

I have already. Indeed, you just quoted me making the charge in that very post. Any actual response? Or just more smoke?

 Signature 

Doug

-:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:-

El sueño de la razón produce monstruos

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 March 2012 01:59 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 19 ]
Jr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  82
Joined  2012-03-05
dougsmith - 05 March 2012 01:56 PM
FrenchCurve - 05 March 2012 01:52 PM

Which hidden agenda to do what, Doug ? Make the complete charge, instead of insinuating and fishing.

I have already. Indeed, you just quoted me making the charge in that very post. Any actual response? Or just more smoke?

You gave “either this or that”, Doug. Make the specific charge of what my “hidden” agenda is.

I wonder why

not a charge

rather than simply state outright that they think it is bunk.

Simply because I do not think it’s all bunk. I think the trees are dying.

If, OTOH, your aim is to discredit AGW then first of all you are going about your aim in a manner which is less than completely open. Secondly, I have to wonder what makes you think you know better than the scientists who actually study the phenomena professionally.

not a charge, but a question based on a premise which is an inane assertion.

Would you feel cheated if the tree loss was not caused by man ? That’s what is being transmitted; that you would be angry if I had guessed right about the LIA ending, and the Yellow Cedar loss.

[ Edited: 05 March 2012 02:08 PM by FrenchCurve ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 March 2012 02:56 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 20 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  15435
Joined  2006-02-14
FrenchCurve - 05 March 2012 01:59 PM

rather than simply state outright that they think it is bunk.

Simply because I do not think it’s all bunk. I think the trees are dying.

Original context of the bolded word:

Additionally, I wonder why someone would come here and virtually as a first post find issue with some trivial point re. AGW rather than simply state outright that they think it is bunk.

The “it” referred to anthropogenic global warming, not trees dying.

But you already know that. Sorry, but we’ve heard this tune before. And rather than face up to your position you prefer to call the truth “inane”.

Yeah, OK. Inane. Any opinions about other branches of the sciences you’d like to share while you’re at it?

 Signature 

Doug

-:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:-

El sueño de la razón produce monstruos

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 March 2012 03:16 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 21 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6166
Joined  2009-02-26
FrenchCurve - 05 March 2012 06:40 AM

The increasing mortality from lack of snow cover began 130 years ago. So it was climate change even then.
CAGW proponents , do please provide the evidence to show that CO2 emissions caused the lack of snow cover, if that is to be your claim. Or at least show that GW caused it, if that is your claim.

Thanks in advance for taking the time to explain and show the evidence supporting your position.

You claim that the increasing tree mortality of the yellow cedar began 130 years ago. Please cite your reference.

[ Edited: 05 March 2012 03:21 PM by Write4U ]
 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 March 2012 03:31 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 22 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6166
Joined  2009-02-26
FrenchCurve - 05 March 2012 12:28 PM

This statement is odd enough to warrant a second look:

“I’m looking out my window and we have a dusting of snow at best,” Schaberg said from his Vermont office. “And the soils are frozen all over the place, which is not the norm at all. So even just this one component of changing climate — reduced snow packs…i

This scientist expects that by looking out his window in Vermont, and if he sees there is only a dusting of snow today, it means….

This nice inclusion draws an extra note of caution about the article.

Well, I have been looking out my window in NO. Idaho for the last 10 years and I have observed less snow and even as I am not a scientist, I am a skeptic and I do wonder about the cause. Vermont is not a single conversational example. The pattern is world wide, more or less.
That little inclusion draws an extra note of caution about “dismissing” the article, don’t you think?

[ Edited: 05 March 2012 03:35 PM by Write4U ]
 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 March 2012 03:33 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 23 ]
Jr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  82
Joined  2012-03-05
Write4U - 05 March 2012 03:16 PM
FrenchCurve - 05 March 2012 06:40 AM

The increasing mortality from lack of snow cover began 130 years ago. So it was climate change even then.
CAGW proponents , do please provide the evidence to show that CO2 emissions caused the lack of snow cover, if that is to be your claim. Or at least show that GW caused it, if that is your claim.

Thanks in advance for taking the time to explain and show the evidence supporting your position.

You claim that the increasing tree mortality of the yellow cedar began 130 years ago. Please cite your reference.

Hi Write4U

It’s from your article http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/46439567/ns/us_news-environment/#.T1U-5HmBWSo

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 March 2012 03:35 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 24 ]
Jr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  82
Joined  2012-03-05

Additionally, I wonder why someone would come here and virtually as a first post find issue with some trivial point re. AGW rather than simply state outright that they think it is bunk.

The “it” referred to anthropogenic global warming, not trees dying.

Thank you for clarification of your intended usage of the pronoun. To that, I do not state that assertion, simply because I don’t think AGW is all bunk.

But you already know that. Sorry, but we’ve heard this tune before. And rather than face up to your position you prefer to call the truth “inane”.

No I did not know that. The trivial point you mention is about the trees, is it not ?

Yeah, OK. Inane. Any opinions about other branches of the sciences you’d like to share while you’re at it?

on topic, please, Doug.

[ Edited: 05 March 2012 03:51 PM by FrenchCurve ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 March 2012 03:41 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 25 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4860
Joined  2007-10-05
Write4U - 22 February 2012 04:50 PM

Cedar especially is a human friendly species for its excellent properties.

Except the millions of people in Texas who suffer from cedar pollen allergies every winter.

 Signature 

You cannot have a rational conversation with someone who holds irrational beliefs.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 March 2012 03:44 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 26 ]
Jr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  82
Joined  2012-03-05
Write4U - 05 March 2012 03:31 PM
FrenchCurve - 05 March 2012 12:28 PM

This statement is odd enough to warrant a second look:

“I’m looking out my window and we have a dusting of snow at best,” Schaberg said from his Vermont office. “And the soils are frozen all over the place, which is not the norm at all. So even just this one component of changing climate — reduced snow packs…i

This scientist expects that by looking out his window in Vermont, and if he sees there is only a dusting of snow today, it means….

This nice inclusion draws an extra note of caution about the article.

Well, I have been looking out my window in NO. Idaho for the last 10 years and I have observed less snow and even as I am not a scientist, I am a skeptic and I do wonder about the cause. Vermont is not a single conversational example. The pattern is world wide, more or less.
That little inclusion draws an extra note of caution about “dismissing” the article, don’t you think?

No, because
1. I expect better from a scientist talking to the public.
2. I did not dismiss the article. I’m quite interested and even used it to tell you what you apparently hadn’t bothered to read.

[ Edited: 05 March 2012 03:54 PM by FrenchCurve ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 March 2012 03:54 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 27 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  9301
Joined  2006-08-29
Write4U - 05 March 2012 03:31 PM

Well, I have been looking out my window in NO. Idaho for the last 10 years and I have observed less snow and even as I am not a scientist, I am a skeptic and I do wonder about the cause. Vermont is not a single conversational example. The pattern is world wide, more or less.

Isn’t Europe getting more snow than the usual?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 March 2012 03:59 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 28 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6166
Joined  2009-02-26
FrenchCurve - 05 March 2012 03:44 PM
Write4U - 05 March 2012 03:31 PM
FrenchCurve - 05 March 2012 12:28 PM

This statement is odd enough to warrant a second look:

“I’m looking out my window and we have a dusting of snow at best,” Schaberg said from his Vermont office. “And the soils are frozen all over the place, which is not the norm at all. So even just this one component of changing climate — reduced snow packs…i

This scientist expects that by looking out his window in Vermont, and if he sees there is only a dusting of snow today, it means….

This nice inclusion draws an extra note of caution about the article.

Well, I have been looking out my window in NO. Idaho for the last 10 years and I have observed less snow and even as I am not a scientist, I am a skeptic and I do wonder about the cause. Vermont is not a single conversational example. The pattern is world wide, more or less.
That little inclusion draws an extra note of caution about “dismissing” the article, don’t you think?

No, because I expect better from a scientist talking to the public.

Do you infer that this “looking out the window” was the sole basis for his conclusions on GW? Or just a little aside which confirms his scholarly work.

btw. the industrial revolution started at about 1775, one hundred years before the first effects of GW began to appear. The early days of the IR used the most polluting methods and were used for the greatest advance and increase of mechanization. While today we have more efficient methods, the human population in the last 230 years has increased seven fold., from 1 billion to almost 7 billion.
This is a classic example of the “exponential function”.

 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 March 2012 04:01 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 29 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6166
Joined  2009-02-26
DarronS - 05 March 2012 03:41 PM
Write4U - 22 February 2012 04:50 PM

Cedar especially is a human friendly species for its excellent properties.

Except the millions of people in Texas who suffer from cedar pollen allergies every winter.

Yellow Cedar?  And they still use cedar shakes on their houses no?  Or are they using tar shingles?

[ Edited: 05 March 2012 04:04 PM by Write4U ]
 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 March 2012 04:04 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 30 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4860
Joined  2007-10-05
Write4U - 05 March 2012 04:01 PM
DarronS - 05 March 2012 03:41 PM
Write4U - 22 February 2012 04:50 PM

Cedar especially is a human friendly species for its excellent properties.

Except the millions of people in Texas who suffer from cedar pollen allergies every winter.

Yellow Cedar?

Mountain Cedar with red pollen. Wicked stuff. Sucks a lot of our precious water out of the ground too. They’ve taken over the Hill Country because deer won’t eat the seeds. Can’t say I blame ‘em.

Cedar: The Plague of Texas

[ Edited: 05 March 2012 04:07 PM by DarronS ]
 Signature 

You cannot have a rational conversation with someone who holds irrational beliefs.

Profile
 
 
   
2 of 6
2